American exceptionalism: A letter to a leftist friend
By Patrick O'Hannigan
web posted July 21, 2003
I was thinking about those articles and Internet links that you
send me uncovering thuggishness and deceit in high places as
reported by the likes of "The Nation." The linchpin of your (and
their) argument with the Bush administration's conduct in Iraq
seems to be that it subjected the rest of us to a "bait and switch"
justification for war. I don't see that, because it seems to me that
the administration always presented a laundry list of reasons why
Hussein was a threat, and most of them were thoroughly
documented instances of motive and opportunity, but at least
your position there is defensible.
Whether America is an empire has been secondary to the bait-
and-switch argument, although in the end getting the terms right
in this area seems more important. You've said that we are an
empire but foolishly refuse to admit it, for reasons that have a lot
to do with how we think about ourselves (people who rebel
against an Empire, as Americans once did, aren't usually
comfortable with becoming one later on).
I'll buy the "empire" label, with one caveat. I don't think you're
giving enough credit to the idea of American exceptionalism. I'm
not suggesting that America has access to special grace, or is
immune to the laws of cause and effect. In fact, I think you're
right to deride Reagan's "shining city on a hill" rhetoric as not
reflecting reality on the ground in that swamp of corruption called
Washington, D.C.
Moreover, as a Catholic, I'm deeply suspicious of Protestant
attempts to dragoon biblical references to the "New Jerusalem"
into functioning as synonyms for the United States. That seems
arrogant and uninformed. New Jerusalem, when it comes, will
rest on Jesus, not on George Washington. Your mileage may
vary.
BUT...Reagan and other "exceptionalists" were and are right to
remember that America remains the only country in the world not
founded on mono-racial or mono-cultural bedrock. Even the
original 13 British colonies were not monolithic, as D.H.
Fischer's well-respected book, "Albion's Seed" made clear a
few years back.
America was founded on ideas. As a German newspaper
editorial forwarded to me by my friend Kurt suggested some
months ago, when you look at the U.S. flag, you realize that
America doesn't HAVE an ideology because America IS an
ideology. Think about it. No other country in the world can
plausibly make that claim, or back it up with the hard evidence
presented by millions of immigrants who vote with their feet to
come to the United States. Inflow to here has always been
greater than outflow from here, and it's not far-fetched to see
American exceptionalism as the dynamic behind that. (The free
market is itself an effect of this exceptionalism, not its cause--
and never mind references to "capitalism," which is a Marxist
slang word for the free market. Marx wasn't paying us a
compliment, and he knew that by applying an "ism" to the end of
any noun, you can make it sound disreputable.)
America's founding documents, and the principles they embody,
make her an objectively better country to live in than others.
Every major blot on American history has been in violation of
those documents.
To make a long story short, then, the United States IS now an
empire. We agree with each other on that. Where we disagree is
in applying the lessons of history to our current situation.
I have no use for comparing the U.S. today with ancient Rome
or 18th-century England, because I think U.S. imperialism differs
in kind and not just in degree from all previous imperialisms.
That, and the attacks of 11 Sept. 2001, places the Bush
administration in uncharted waters.
Bush is too cavalier about spending my tax dollars on stupid
things and too willing to play politics when it suits his purposes
(where's Alan Keyes when you need him?), but Bush and Co.
seem to grasp what makes this country different better than his
Democrat rivals do. Come to think of it, U.K. Prime Minister
Tony Blair understands American exceptionalism better than
most Democrats do, because he's an old-fashioned liberal and
most of them know very little history.
Joke about favors to Haliburton and Bechtel all you want. Big
business is a legitimate target for satire. On the other hand, with
or without ties to Dick Cheney, why wouldn't an oil services
company be helping out in an area whose chief resource is oil?
(Bill Clinton, true to form, did favors for Arkansas' own Tyson
Chicken Corporation). What puts big business in perspective is
that it flourishes more in the U.S. of A. than elsewhere.
An example from my backyard: Basha's, the biggest chain of
grocery stores in Arizona, is the brain-child of two local boys
made good. They are brothers whose parents immigrated to the
United States from Lebanon. Does their success feed the
American mythology? You bet. But that mythology is grounded
in reality and no poor-mouthing from editorialists at "The Nation"
or diplomats in Europe can change that.
Sorry to run so long. That's my four cents...
Patrick
Patrick O'Hannigan (plaiddude@hotmail.com) is a writer in
Arizona.
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com